Evidence-Based Studies

The research studies below, which examine the effectiveness of the Read Naturally intervention program, have been reviewed and found to contain substantial evidence to support the use of the Read Naturally Strategy under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015).

Danielle Dupuis, Ph.D., Assistant Director for Research and Assessment at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement found that two studies provide strong evidence for the effectiveness of the Read Naturally Strategy, four studies provide moderate evidence of Read Naturally's effectiveness, and three other studies provide promising evidence.

Dr. Dupuis also found that multiple other studies show that the Read Naturally Strategy is an effective intervention, but those studies do not meet the definition of "evidence based" due to methodological flaws in the studies' designs, not because Read Naturally was ineffective for the students in the studies.

pointer Read Danielle Dupuis's complete report

Strong Evidence for the Read Naturally Strategy

Christ, T. J., & Davie, J. (2009). Empirical evaluation of Read Naturally effects: A randomized control trial.
The Christ & Davie study showed effect sizes of .66 for fluency with the Grey Oral Reading Test–Fourth Edition: Fluency (GORT 4: Fluency) and .66 for accuracy with the GORT 4: Accuracy.
pointer Learn more about the Christ & Davie study

DIBELS scores for the Read Naturally group and a control group

Arvans, R. (2010). Improving reading fluency and comprehension in elementary students using Read Naturally.
At the end of the eight-week Arvans study, the Read Naturally group had a large effect size of .81 for fluency. The control group had a moderate effect size of .57 for fluency. This effect size difference of .24 in eight weeks is significant, especially if extrapolated over a school year.
pointer Learn more about the Arvans study

Moderate Evidence for the Read Naturally Strategy

	Tucker, C. & Jones, D. (2010). Response to intervention: Increasing fluency, rate, and accuracy for students at risk for reading failure. The Tucker & Jones study showed effect sizes of .51 for rate with the GORT 4: Rate, .87 for accuracy with the GORT 4: Accuracy, and .75 for fluency with the GORT 4: Fluency. Learn more about the Tucker & Jones study
	Heistad, D. (2005). The effects of Read Naturally on fluency and reading comprehension: A supplemental service intervention (four-school study). In this four-school study, Read Naturally students showed an effect size for reading comprehension of .38 on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA). Learn more about the Heistad four-school study
	Heistad, D. (2008). The effects of Read Naturally on grade 3 reading: A study in the Minneapolis Public Schools. In this study of third graders in the Minneapolis Public Schools, students using Read Naturally showed reading gains that were statistically greater than students in a control group, based on student scores on the Northwest Achievement Levels Test and Read Naturally's benchmark assessment for oral reading fluency. Learn more about the Heistad study of third graders
	Graves, A. W., Duesbery, L., Pyle, N. B., Brandon, R. R., & McIntosh, A. S. (2011). Two studies of Tier II literacy development: Throwing sixth graders a lifeline. In the Graves study, students who received a combined intervention package of Read Naturally, Corrective Reading or Rewards, and Daybrook made statistically significant gains in oral reading fluency and passage comprehension compared to a control group. Learn more about the Graves et al. study

Promising Evidence for the Read Naturally Strategy

	Mesa, C. (n.d.). First-grade students, South Forsyth County, GA. In the Mesa study, first graders using the Read Naturally Strategy had significantly greater gains in fluency and comprehension than a control group who did not use Read Naturally. Learn more about the Mesa study
	Wright, S. (2006). The effects of Read Naturally on students' oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. ?In the Wright study, students using the Read Naturally Strategy had greater gains in fluency and comprehension than students in a matched control group. Learn more about the Wright study
	Read Naturally, Inc. (1997). Second-grade students, Elk River, MN. In the Elk River study, second-grade students who used the Read Naturally Strategy over 12 weeks increased their reading fluency by an average of 92 percent, compared to a control group that made an average gain of 38 percent over the same period. Learn more about the Elk River study

Research Topics

Research Documents in the Knowledgebase

Evidence-Based Studies

Strong Evidence for the Read Naturally Strategy

Moderate Evidence for the Read Naturally Strategy

Promising Evidence for the Read Naturally Strategy

See also:

Research Topics